DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Videos
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18769--------------------------------------------------
The Sandpiper 1965
By: HOLLAND Date: May 18, 2018, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It was a very good year! :)
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT0zk588ds
#Post#: 18770--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Sandpiper 1965
By: Kerry Date: May 18, 2018, 3:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That is a movie I missed.
#Post#: 18774--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Sandpiper 1965
By: HOLLAND Date: May 18, 2018, 8:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1336.msg18770#msg18770
date=1526675413]
That is a movie I missed.
[/quote]
I remember, Kerry, seeing it some ten years later. It brought
back memories. For Californians who lived back at that time,
it, doubtlessly, brought back memories of that state before it
had its social deterioration. Then it was much like Montana
except for its larger cities.
For me, it brought back a song that I remember, "The Shadow of
Your Smile". That song was a favorite for me during 1965-1966.
As I think about it, I must be suffering from Trump burnout with
my thoughts going back to those years. Trump and his many
antics are wearing upon me and I suppose many others. So how it
goes.
Here is "The Shadow of Your Smile" as sung by Tony Bennett. It
is the version I remember from those years.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwZhWhkA8V0
As I recall, some folks back in those days, some fifty years,
thought me a hopeless romantic for enjoying this song. I
suppose I am.
#Post#: 18783--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Sandpiper 1965
By: paralambano Date: May 19, 2018, 9:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Holland - ^
I also missed this movie. At first, I thought of The Sand
Pebbles which is a Steve McQueen movie I kind of watched many
year ago without understanding it since it seemed like it was
political or something.
Ya, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. They were the hot
couple for some time back then. What a depressing movie Burton
starred in with The Spy Who Came In From The Cold. I was sort of
half-watching it a while ago. Blech!
Ol' back-flap para . . . .
#Post#: 18804--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Sandpiper 1965
By: HOLLAND Date: May 21, 2018, 9:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1336.msg18783#msg18783
date=1526739901]
Holland - ^
I also missed this movie. At first, I thought of The Sand
Pebbles which is a Steve McQueen movie I kind of watched many
year ago without understanding it since it seemed like it was
political or something.
Ya, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. They were the hot
couple for some time back then.[quote]
Yes, para, they were indeed.
[quote]What a depressing movie Burton starred in with The Spy
Who Came In From The Cold. I was sort of half-watching it a
while ago. Blech!
Ol' back-flap para . . . .
[/quote]
In [i]The Spy Who Came In From The Cold[/I] Richard Burton
played the tragic role of a spy who was caught and killed by the
opposite side. John LeCarre didn't romanticize espionage and
showed its tawdry side. There is more to that character that
has come out in LeCarre's last novel [I]The Legacy of Spies[/I].
In this last novel, LeCarre tells more about that character and
hints at the greatness of the achievements of that agent during
his operational life during the Cold War and so the story comes
to a happier conclusion in the mind of the readers at the very
end. This last novel, I think, is the final novel LeCarre will
write given his age.
Barbra Streisand has a good version of "The Shadow of Your
Smile". It is a tender song . . .
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVZiMMV2nAY
#Post#: 18814--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Sandpiper 1965
By: HOLLAND Date: May 22, 2018, 8:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the meaning of The Sandpiper movie, is found in the
following sermon, that appears in the movie, that is a summation
of the meaning of a person's life at a certain point, where that
person discovers who one is and what one has learned, and that
love is not necessarily found in its consummation or possession,
but in other ways. This is that moment in the film:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PkhQHBb2-s
It is interesting that an American film has, at its most
important point, a sermon displayed. How times have changed . .
.
#Post#: 18815--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Sandpiper 1965
By: Kerry Date: May 23, 2018, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=1336.msg18814#msg18814
date=1527040782]
It is interesting that an American film has, at its most
important point, a sermon displayed. How times have changed . .
.
[/quote]I couldn't understand it. What was it all about anyway?
The language struck me as evasive and I thought he was trying to
excuse himself. Then again, movies with "stars" in them tend
to make me focus on their celebrity and how it's all pretend
anyway -- and I find it hard to focus on the words and actions.
The situation also made me uncomfortable. All those
"significant glances" made me squirm. He appeared to be
discussing something highly personal but in a public setting so
he was trying to say something without really saying it. Why
subject the children in the school to all that? I was hoping
someone would give him a good slap across his face.
#Post#: 18816--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Sandpiper 1965
By: HOLLAND Date: May 23, 2018, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1336.msg18815#msg18815
date=1527079415]
I couldn't understand it. What was it all about anyway? The
language struck me as evasive and I thought he was trying to
excuse himself. Then again, movies with "stars" in them tend
to make me focus on their celebrity and how it's all pretend
anyway -- and I find it hard to focus on the words and actions.
The situation also made me uncomfortable. All those
"significant glances" made me squirm. He appeared to be
discussing something highly personal but in a public setting so
he was trying to say something without really saying it. Why
subject the children in the school to all that? I was hoping
someone would give him a good slap across his face.
[/quote]
It's a story about a scandal, Kerry, between a married man
(Richard Burton) and someone who was not his wife (Elizabeth
Taylor).
A synopsis of the story is in Wikipedia:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandpiper
Plot
Laura Reynolds (Taylor) is a free-spirited, unwed single mother
living with her young son Danny (Morgan Mason) in an isolated
beach house in Big Sur, California. She makes a modest living as
an artist and home-schools her son out of concern that he will
be compelled to follow stifling conventional social norms in a
regular school. Danny has gotten into some trouble with the law
through two minor incidents, which are in his mother's eyes
innocent expressions of his natural curiosity and conscience
rather than delinquency. Now with a third incident a judge
(Torin Thatcher) orders her to send the boy to an Episcopal
boarding school where Dr. Edward Hewitt (Burton) is headmaster,
and his wife Claire (Eva Marie Saint) teaches. Edward and Claire
are happily married with two student sons, but their life has
become routine and their youthful idealism has been tamed by the
need to raise funds for the school and please wealthy
benefactors.
At an initial interview, there is a momentary immediate
attraction between Laura and Edward, but this quickly turns into
tension brought on by their greatly differing world views and
Laura's dislike of religion. Finally she storms out. She
attempts to flee the area with Danny but the police quickly
catch them and take the boy away to the school. He initially has
trouble fitting in because his mother's home schooling has
placed him far in advance of boys his age in many subjects; the
standard course of instruction at the school leaves him restless
and bored. At Claire's suggestion, Edward visits Danny's mother
to learn more about his upbringing.
Laura's unconventional morals initially disturb Edward, as they
conflict with his religious beliefs. After visiting her several
more times he finds her irresistible and cannot get her out of
his mind. They begin a passionate affair. At first Laura tells
herself that Edward is a fling like her other lovers, but to her
surprise she finds herself falling in love with him, becoming
jealous of his wife Claire. He struggles with guilt, while she
urges him to accept their love. Meanwhile, Danny flourishes
after Edward relaxes school rules and allows the boy to choose
more advanced classes.
A jealous former lover (Robert Webber) of Laura's exposes the
affair by making a remark to Edward within earshot of his wife.
At first Claire is distraught, but later they quietly discuss it
in the light of how their lives diverged from the idealism of
the first years of their marriage. Edward declares that he still
loves Claire and that he will end the affair. Still, they agree
to a temporary separation while each decides what they want to
do with their future. When Edward tells Laura that he confessed
to his wife, she is outraged at what she perceives as an
invasion of her privacy, and they part angrily. He resigns his
position at the school and decides to travel. The school year
over, Laura tells Danny that they can move away, but he has put
down roots at the school and wants to stay there. As a parting
gift, Edward arranges for Danny to attend tuition-free. His
mother has a moment of pain but realizes Danny's need to make
his own choices and agrees. On Edward's way out of town, he
stops at Laura's place for a silent farewell, she and the boy
down on the beach, he high up on the bluff above looking down at
them.
The sermon is a statement, an oblique confession of guilt to a
scandal to his wife and to the woman he had an inappropriate
affair with. Its oblique nature was in keeping with the culture
of the time.
The confession has all of the characteristics of a situation
where a man has fallen in love with another woman who is not his
wife. It has all the awkwardness and dilemmas of such an
affair. He still loves his wife and ends the affair. The movie
shows that unfaithfulness in love is a serious matter for all
involved.
What was important was the affair was confessed to and that it
was ended. For me, the movie showed that love must be honored
though it may be misplaced, but love is part of the nexus of
other values as well such as faithfulness, truthfulness, etc.
#Post#: 18817--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Sandpiper 1965
By: Kerry Date: May 23, 2018, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=1336.msg18816#msg18816
date=1527081295]
The sermon is a statement, an oblique confession of guilt to a
scandal to his wife and to the woman he had an inappropriate
affair with. Its oblique nature was in keeping with the culture
of the time. [/quote]It was? I don't think it should have been
discussed at all, even obliquely, not in public. I found it
unacceptable, unnecessary and somewhat Hollywoodish in its
morals. The children did not need to hear that kind of stuff.
It was impossible for them to understand the context of the
speech, so it was incomprehensible. The "lesson" contained in
the sermon to them was nonexistent.
There was no need for him to "confess" to his wife in public.
Sins in private should be confessed in private, there is no need
to make things more awkward and complicated by dragging the
public into a situation if it can be kept private. Sins in
public need to be confessed to in public and directly too
without dodging or excuses. One cannot hide behind "love" as an
excuse for betraying anyone.
I think being oblique and obscure in a confession reveals
something about the person. Something remains to be repented
of, some more hidden weakness needs to be found and corrected.
[quote]The confession has all of the characteristics of a
situation where a man has fallen in love with another woman who
is not his wife. It has all the awkwardness and dilemmas of
such an affair. He still loves his wife and ends the affair.
The movie shows that unfaithfulness in love is a serious matter
for all involved.[/quote]Did he love the "other woman"? Can a
married man excuse his adultery by saying he fell in love
"inappropriately" with another woman? I say no. He doesn't
know yet what love is. If he loved his wife enough, he wouldn't
have done it. If he loved the other woman, he would ask her to
wait for him until he divorced the wife he didn't love so they
could marry and be with each other. A married man who asks
another woman to hide their affair is using that woman.
Apparently, Laura (played by Elizabeth Taylor) also has no idea
what love is. It looks to me as if she was a "you only want
the things you can't get" kind of person. She picked at least
two losers, neither of whom loved her. The ex-lover who
exposed the affair? Was that love? No, it was jealousy. Still
I'd say she would have been better off with him than with a
married man who ditched her to be with his wife. But she
preferred the married man? Oh right, she didn't "love" him to
begin with -- she just wanted a fling at first. If she found
out later she loved him, she would have insisted he do the
honorable thing -- return to his wife and children, don't
jeopardize his job and reputation.
She was annoyed then when he "confessed" to his wife? That was
an invasion of her privacy? What an outrageous set of morals
she had. It was okay for her to sleep with another woman's
husband but not okay for him to tell his wife? Anyone foolish
enough to "fall in love" with such a woman deserves whatever he
gets.
The movie was an indictment too of the Anglican Church and its
school system. How could such a naive man with such dubious
morals be put in charge of a religious school?
[quote]What was important was the affair was confessed to and
that it was ended. [/quote]I think you've been duped. The
affair was not confessed to, not voluntarily. The headmaster
was placed in a situation where his duplicity and dishonorable
conduct got exposed. He didn't tell his wife about the affair
on his own steam. I don't know if the right thing to do is
always to confess such things -- in some cases, perhaps it's
better to say nothing but resolve quietly never to repeat your
mistakes.
It depends on how the spouse will respond. Confessing in order
to make yourself feel less guilty is selfish. It may be better
in some situations to accept feelings of guilt and remorse as
penances to bear. If others will never find out about my
"sins," why hurt them unnecessarily with confessions designed to
make me feel better? What they don't know won't hurt them so
let sleeping dogs lie. Move on, and tell yourself something
like, "Every time I feel guilty about this, I will tell my wife
I love her or do some kind deed to show her my love." Let's
assume however in this case, the best thing to do would to tell
the wife. He did not confess this to his wife. He rashly got
into an affair that other people knew about, where an ex-lover
could and did interfere with his marriage. That was stupid. If
you're going to have a affair that you want kept secret, keep
it secret! Don't delude yourself by saying you want to keep it
secret while acting in ways that are not discrete.
How did Laura's ex-lover find out about this affair? I didn't
see the movie, so I don't know. I'm assuming Laura told him
about it. If that is true, how could she be vexed by what the
headmaster told his wife? If she was the one who "let the cat
out of the bag" by discussing her affair with Edward with an
ex-lover, why try to shift the blame to him -- why not blame
herself and her ex-lover?
Shabby morals is what I see. If I do something I want kept
private, I plan on what to do if it becomes a matter of public
discussion. I should never be in a spot where I get angry
at someone else for daring to tell the truth. If I think
someone else can't be trusted with information, I don't tell
them things I want kept private. If I get surprised by someone
telling something I thought they could be trusted with, I still
don't feel betrayed or annoyed. It was my fault for trusting
them, my mistake in judgment. Live and learn.
The movie also seems to be preaching another sermon that may
undermine sound morals. The boy was sent to that school to
teach him values he didn't have. It's not clear at all to me
what happened there. "Meanwhile, Danny flourishes after
Edward relaxes school rules and allows the boy to choose more
advanced classes." The movie script may be conflating rigidity
in pointless or even stupid rules with an honest set of values
that need to be honored. The scriptwriters may have want to
show how stupid any rules are. I don't know since I didn't
see the film; but I do know the script can be interpreted as
saying, "The judge sent this boy to this school to acquire
social and moral values where the headmaster himself had none."
It looks to me like a subtle attack on religion and religious
schools -- not a direct attack with an honest and
straightforward approach but a subtle-like-the-serpent kind of
attack.
There is another mixed message. If this boy benefited so much
from this school and the headmaster arranged for free tuition
for him so he could stay there and flourish, why walk away from
the school? Because your marriage is stale? Because you're so
undisciplined, you can't keep it in your pants because you crave
excitement too much? The headmaster seems to walk away from
the situation without addressing the question if he was
accomplishing any good in his job. That's dodged by putting the
ball in the boy's court -- he should decide what he wants to do
for himself. Oh? And that doesn't involve any adults? What a
silly thought -- adults are needed to set up schools, to run
them, to teach. For children to have choices, adults are
needed to make some choices possible. Could this man justify
leaving, just because he and his wife had left their marriage
stagnate? Is a reasonable answer leaving in order to travel
with his wife? I don't find it that reasonable. I find it
leaning towards hedonism -- "We'll leave this place where we
were doing good for others because I'm a hypocrite and a
weakling who needs excitement, so honey, let's ditch this place
and go have some fun to patch up our boring marriage."
There doesn't seem to be a message about the need for balance in
life. Of course, married people need to strike a balance
between family and jobs and other social relationships; and of
course, I would say the marriage ought to be given more
importance than other relationships; but I do not think a
married couple will be happy, really happy, if they're not both
working together to improve their other relationships in society
-- indeed working together to improve society. You shouldn't
walk away from a situation if you were doing good in it.
[quote]For me, the movie showed that love must be honored though
it may be misplaced, but love is part of the nexus of other
values as well such as faithfulness, truthfulness,
etc.[/quote]Can love ever be wrong? I don't see how it could
be, not if it's really love. Saying love is misplaced is not
how I'd phrase it. I'd say love, if it's really love, is never
wrong. If we love others, we want what is best for them and act
appropriately. We should not conflate "lovingkindness" and
"love." In most cases, "lovingkindness" is an expression of
real love or can be. The soft feelings often associated with
love can go together with real love. In some cases, the two
don't go together.
A brother and sister will probably have feelings of
"lovingkindness" towards each other. It's to be expected they
will. They may also genuinely love each other; and if they do
genuinely love each other, they cannot be seduced into thinking
incest is okay. Thus the Bible condemns this kind of
relationship as mere "lovingkindness." It's not real love. The
following passage almost never gets translated right. Checed
means lovingkindness, not "a wicked thing."
Leviticus 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his
father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her
nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing
<checed>; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their
people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear
his iniquity.
It is understandable in a way since there will be feelings
between a brother and sister which we often associate with love;
but it's not love, not real love. I begin to wonder if any of
the characters in this movie knew the difference.
I found the last sentence from Wikipedia interesting. "On
Edward's way out of town, he stops at Laura's place for a silent
farewell, she and the boy down on the beach, he high up on the
bluff above looking down at them." Here we go again, parading
what should be kept private in front of a child. Nothing gets
said in this instance; but why do it at all? If he figured it
out that his relationship with this woman was inappropriate and
it would be wrong to discuss it in front of her son, why bother
doing this? It's trying to have things both ways. He's still
trying to do things in secret, trying to get things done while
hiding them from others. In this case however, he's doing it
in front of the son expecting the son not to understand what's
going on. In a way we could say he's trying to hide things out
in the open.
What good did a "silent farewell" do? I found the idea
slightly disgusting as if he was still feeling regret about not
being able to be with Laura, or possibly still wanting to
explain things to her in order to think she would understand him
and still "love" him. I may be considered nutty; but if I
wanted to sever a relationship like that, I'd prefer it if the
other person got over me quickly and with as little sorrow as
possible. Implying, "Oh baby, you know I love you and want to
be with you, but you know we can't be together" is selfish. If
I was an adulterer, I think the best thing for my ex-lover would
be to see me as a dishonorable and selfish man -- the truth.
Laura really was poor at picking her men. She needed to learn
some things about love and sex. This "silent farewell" did not
help teach her any of those lessons. The schoolmaster was
still entrenched in wanting something from her, wanting to feel
she still cared about him and understood him, while he could and
would do nothing real to show he cared about her. This was an
empty gesture to me, meant to salve his conscience and to try to
deceive himself into thinking the "other woman" still cared
about him.
I was also uncertain what the article meant by, "He resigns his
position at the school and decides to travel." While I assumed
that meant he and his wife left the school to travel, I realize
it doesn't say that. Did he decide to travel on his own, or did
he discuss this with his wife? Again, I'm in the dark not
having seen the movie; but it looks a little like the kind of
traditional patriarchy where the man makes the decisions and the
wife is expected to go along. Did he talk these decisions over
with his wife before taking action -- or did he unilaterally
decide what would be best for them both? We were told they had
agreed to a period of separation, so perhaps that meant he would
be traveling by himself. If he decided on his own to quit his
job and to travel without consulting his wife, then he wasn't
serious in my opinion about trying to patch up his marriage.
Even if they were separated, he should have asked her what she
thought. What kind of life would make her happy? A man who
shows that kind of consideration for a wife whose feelings he's
offended has a better chance at repairing his marriage, if you
ask me, than a man who ditches her to go travel on his own
because that is what he wants to do. I also read that as
running away from the situation in another way, that he was
afraid others would find out about the affair, that he'd be
fired and disgraced.
So I'm left wondering if he asked his wife what he could do to
make her happier, to make her trust him more again by showing
her he was willing to put her first? If a man who cheated on
his wife wants to repair things, he has to be willing to do
whatever it takes to make her feel he really loves her. If that
means staying put and getting fired and disgraced, do that. If
she says move and get another job, do that. I say there are
some cases when the man is obliged to "obey" his wife.
Abraham erred at first by "hearkening" to Sarah. Later God
told him he had to "hearken" to her.
Genesis 16:2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord
hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my
maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram
hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous
in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman;
in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice;
for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Did Abraham love Hagar? Did he love Ishmael? I would say he
felt "lovingkindness" towards them; but Sarah was the one he
really loved. I think it would have become a sin for Abraham
to keep Hagar and Ishmael around since they were making Sarah's
life miserable. Abraham learned that lesson; the man in the
movie doesn't seem to have, not if he discarded his lover and
also separated from his wife to travel on his own, making all
life's decisions on his own.
I don't know what to make of it; but there is a parallel to the
story about Abraham and Sarah since it was the man's wife in the
movie who suggested he visit Laura. Her suggestion, like
Sarah's, got the plot going. Justice may require that the ball
be put in her court then, the way it was put in Sarah's. The
wife did not know her husband as well as she thought -- it
would have been smarter to suggest they both visit her instead
of sending her husband alone. Can the wife be forgiven for
trusting her husband too much? I'd say so. It should be easy;
but such a wife also needs to become smarter and less tolerant
and how not to suggest situations which could create problems.
A husband, in such a situation, could say without making an
accusation, "Honey, never let me alone again with another woman;
and if you suggest I meet a woman alone, I won't listen to you.
I never want to hurt you again that way; and the best way to
avoid that is to avoid temptation just in case I'm not strong
enough to resist it."
Notice too how the wife was right to be concerned about the
child's welfare. Sarah was right too, I think, in wanting to
see Abraham have the son he wanted. I think "lovingkindess" in
both cases led to unintended disaster. We need to have common
sense in how we express our gentle feelings. Women, in my
opinion, tend to be more sensitive and caring than men; but
sometimes they don't think things through enough; and it seems
to me more often than not, that women pay a higher price than
men when this happens.
#Post#: 18819--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Sandpiper 1965
By: HOLLAND Date: May 23, 2018, 9:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1336.msg18817#msg18817
date=1527115127]
It was? I don't think it should have been discussed at all,
even obliquely, not in public. I found it unacceptable,
unnecessary and somewhat Hollywoodish in its morals. The
children did not need to hear that kind of stuff. It was
impossible for them to understand the context of the speech, so
it was incomprehensible. The "lesson" contained in the sermon
to them was nonexistent.
There was no need for him to "confess" to his wife in public.
Sins in private should be confessed in private, there is no need
to make things more awkward and complicated by dragging the
public into a situation if it can be kept private. Sins in
public need to be confessed to in public and directly too
without dodging or excuses. One cannot hide behind "love" as an
excuse for betraying anyone.
I think being oblique and obscure in a confession reveals
something about the person. Something remains to be repented
of, some more hidden weakness needs to be found and corrected.
[/quote]
This was the culture of the 1960s, Kerry. At that time, in
polite society, there were certain norms of behavior that had to
be followed. They were set down by Mrs. Amy Vanderbilt and Mrs.
Emily Post. At that time, guarded public statements were the
norm given that it was considered good form to hush up scandals.
At the time, when the sin of scandal occurred, it was thought
sinful, or bad form to add to the scandal. I interpret the
scene under those conditions.
[quote]Did he love the "other woman"?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]Can a married man excuse his adultery by saying he fell
in love "inappropriately" with another woman? I say
no.[/quote]
To say that something was inappropriate is not offering an
excuse for it. Edward (Richard Burton) confessed the affair to
his wife and broke it off and did acknowledge, obliquely, in his
public statement and sermon, that he had been in the wrong.
I think that it is to be expected that passionate persons will
fall in love with others who are not their spouse. For such
persons, they have to be guarded against those that inspire
their passions, lest the possibility of a casual relationship
leads to an affair.
[quote]He doesn't know yet what love is. If he loved his wife
enough, he wouldn't have done it. If he loved the other woman,
he would ask her to wait for him until he divorced the wife he
didn't love so they could marry and be with each other. A
married man who asks another woman to hide their affair is using
that woman.[/quote]
For passionate people, it is very hard to be always guarded in
one's relationships with others, so for passionate people,
falling in love with another can be much easier. As an act of
passion, this form of love is different from the love that is
also affirmed by an act of decision to love a particular person
exclusively. Passionate love is to be distinguished from
decisive love, I think.
The hiding of the affair, which is the hiding of a scandal, was
something expected at the time. At the time, detraction of
another's reputation was considered bad form or a sin.
[quote]Apparently, Laura (played by Elizabeth Taylor) also has
no idea what love is. It looks to me as if she was a "you only
want the things you can't get" kind of person. She picked at
least two losers, neither of whom loved her. The ex-lover who
exposed the affair? Was that love? No, it was jealousy. Still
I'd say she would have been better off with him than with a
married man who ditched her to be with his wife. But she
preferred the married man? Oh right, she didn't "love" him to
begin with -- she just wanted a fling at first. If she found
out later she loved him, she would have insisted he do the
honorable thing -- return to his wife and children, don't
jeopardize his job and reputation.
She was annoyed then when he "confessed" to his wife? That was
an invasion of her privacy? What an outrageous set of morals
she had. It was okay for her to sleep with another woman's
husband but not okay for him to tell his wife? Anyone foolish
enough to "fall in love" with such a woman deserves whatever he
gets.[/quote]
I can concede that she was defying the morals of her day. I was
struck by the portrayal of her personality. She seemed to type
of woman that was very passionate but afraid of the moral
commitment that is needed for a long term or permanent emotional
relationship. Her passion, I think, was what drew Edward
(Richard Burton) towards her. Inwardly, I felt the Edward
character needed passion in his life. Perhaps, Edward, was
tired of the pedagogy that he lived with that involved probably
a great deal of Anglican scholasticism.
[quote]The movie was an indictment too of the Anglican Church
and its school system. How could such a naive man with such
dubious morals be put in charge of a religious school?[/quote]
I do not think that it was naivety but rather an unguarded time,
a bad loss in the proper ordering of the passions.
[quote]I think you've been duped. The affair was not confessed
to, not voluntarily. The headmaster was placed in a situation
where his duplicity and dishonorable conduct got exposed. He
didn't tell his wife about the affair on his own steam. I don't
know if the right thing to do is always to confess such things
-- in some cases, perhaps it's better to say nothing but resolve
quietly never to repeat your mistakes.[/quote]
I think the confession was voluntary because he was not willing
to surrender his wife but was wanting to restore their
relationship after the affair had ended. The confession had to
be made, however oblique, within the confines of the culture of
that time. Edward (Richard Burton) needed to do that to retain
the respect of his wife. He would need to have done so to
preserve a chance of saving his marriage.
[quote]It depends on how the spouse will respond. Confessing
in order to make yourself feel less guilty is selfish. It may
be better in some situations to accept feelings of guilt and
remorse as penances to bear. If others will never find out
about my "sins," why hurt them unnecessarily with confessions
designed to make me feel better? What they don't know won't
hurt them so let sleeping dogs lie. Move on, and tell yourself
something like, "Every time I feel guilty about this, I will
tell my wife I love her or do some kind deed to show her my
love." Let's assume however in this case, the best thing to do
would to tell the wife. He did not confess this to his wife.
He rashly got into an affair that other people knew about, where
an ex-lover could and did interfere with his marriage. That was
stupid. If you're going to have a affair that you want kept
secret, keep it secret! Don't delude yourself by saying you
want to keep it secret while acting in ways that are not
discrete.[/quote]
What you're describing is disordered passions in respect to
guilt. Certainly, when one is passionate, one is going to be
selfish. It is part of that emotional territory. Confession
and discretion are going to be wanting and I would agree that
Edward acted foolishly.
[quote]How did Laura's ex-lover find out about this affair? I
didn't see the movie, so I don't know. I'm assuming Laura
told him about it. If that is true, how could she be vexed by
what the headmaster told his wife? If she was the one who
"let the cat out of the bag" by discussing her affair with
Edward with an ex-lover, why try to shift the blame to him --
why not blame herself and her ex-lover?
Shabby morals is what I see. If I do something I want kept
private, I plan on what to do if it becomes a matter of public
discussion. I should never be in a spot where I get angry
at someone else for daring to tell the truth. If I think
someone else can't be trusted with information, I don't tell
them things I want kept private. If I get surprised by someone
telling something I thought they could be trusted with, I still
don't feel betrayed or annoyed. It was my fault for trusting
them, my mistake in judgment. Live and learn.[/quote]
That is part of the tragedy of the affair that composes the main
story line of the movie. Passionate people sadly lack
discretion.
[quote]The movie also seems to be preaching another sermon that
may undermine sound morals. The boy was sent to that school to
teach him values he didn't have. It's not clear at all to me
what happened there. "Meanwhile, Danny flourishes after
Edward relaxes school rules and allows the boy to choose more
advanced classes." The movie script may be conflating rigidity
in pointless or even stupid rules with an honest set of values
that need to be honored. The scriptwriters may have want to
show how stupid any rules are. I don't know since I didn't
see the film; but I do know the script can be interpreted as
saying, "The judge sent this boy to this school to acquire
social and moral values where the headmaster himself had none."
It looks to me like a subtle attack on religion and religious
schools -- not a direct attack with an honest and
straightforward approach but a subtle-like-the-serpent kind of
attack.[/quote]
That is one way of interpreting it, Kerry, and I would be
hard-pressed to defend against it. I think, though, that the
film has more to deal with the ambiguities that arise out of
passionate relationships and how hard it is to follow social and
moral values.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page